When the hapless Mercedes car crashed in the Paris tunnel Saturday, more died than Princess Diana and her companion and driver. The tragedy is swiftly defining the historical chasms and conflicts within the British monarchy that so many had felt but not yet seen with such clarity.
Look at the amazing response of not only the world, but the British people, to the death of their “people’s princess.” Person after person has been on television in London, wondering angrily where Prince Charles was at this important moment. And why it took so long for someone from the family to make a statement to show compassion, not to speak of leadership, when clearly the entire nation cried out for help?
Indeed, as the doleful week progressed, serious analysts of the crown were wondering publicly, for the first time in such a harsh and emotional manner, whether the monarchy was really needed anymore.
“The monarchy must learn a lesson,” analyst Philip Stephens wrote in a probing column in The Financial Times. “It cannot forever rely on the reservoir of good will and respect which has seen it through the past decade. It must begin again to earn the loyalty of its subjects.” Even less kindly, Julia Burchill, columnist for The Guardian, wrote that the House of Windsor had become “a dumb, numb dinosaur, lumbering along in a world of its own, gorged sick on arrogance and ignorance.”
More Top Picks Best Powered Pa Speakers
My own favorite was the London woman who appeared on “ABC News” this week, saying to the cameras: “We are not here because Diana was royalty, but because she wasn’t.”
What we are seeing here is the poignant affection for “Diana,” the beautiful and kind, but essentially ahistorical, naif who proved to the world that living a fairy tale is not for the faint of heart. She is starkly opposed to the maladroit and taciturn “Royal Family.”
But underneath is a conflict over royalty that is already beginning to rock England. Diana understood how to reach people, but she had nothing profound to say–it was all feeling, all kindness, all therapy. The royal family has something historic to say, but they are so tongue-tied by tradition that they can’t speak.
Diana thought she could have the future without the past, while the royals still think they can have the past without the future. Diana learned from her feelings that the world can be “a better place,” while the Windsors long ago learned from history that the world is a treacherous, potentially evil place.
All of this, it must be noted, is coming on top of astonishing national polls in Great Britain showing, for the first time, support for the monarchy at only 48 percent. Note, too, that support was 70 percent even three years ago, and this marked the first time a survey had ever recorded a number under 50 percent of support.
Yet Princess Diana herself never questioned the institution of royalty, if only because she wanted to be royalty but wanted to act with the freedom of a normal person.
And right there is still another contradiction of her life. It was a life of imagery, of cafe society, of pretending not to be the fairy princess. At the same time it was a life that never would have existed without her own, albeit always ambiguous, royal position. This ambiguity (do good, be kind, but also enjoy the perks of royalty) was surely nowhere more present than in her innocent and essentially pretentious decision to reject the protection of royal bodyguards and rely on the private security that finally killed her.
So there you have the conflict inherent in government today, and not only in Great Britain with royalty. It is the conflict between the command of that modern imagery that makes governing possible in an age of television and immediate mass communications and the need for serious governance. (This conflict is present in Washington, as well as London.)
So where does England go from here? New Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair, who seems to make good sense, has started movement toward constitutional reforms that would radically change the Brits’ idea of their “democracy.” This would include devolved government in Scotland and Wales, while hereditary peers will be stripped of political power. The historic “royal prerogative,” which makes it appear that the queen rules as well as reigns, will surely be the next thing to be challenged.
Midweek, London’s respected newspaper The Independent directed an editorial to Prince Charles: “If he and his entourage think that after the solemnities of the funeral it will be business as usual, they are misleading themselves. A period of profound reflection in and about the future of the House of Windsor is now necessary.”
Necessary, surely. But probable? Hardly. The question with the royal family is not whether they will change, but whether they can change. If they could not grasp the opportunities of this historic week as they should have–when they could have comforted the people in the name of the England they supposedly still represent–what else could they possibly grasp?